Why MLK Would Have Opposed ‘Gay Marriage’

Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTSEver notice how the secular left conveniently omits the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a devout Christian minister?

While, historically, there have certainly been apostate “Christians” who, in the name of Christ, have abused and taken out of context certain biblical passages to support slavery, segregation, racism and other evils – it has been, without fail, true Christians, that is, Bible-believing Christians of every race, color and creed, who have led the charge in defense of all legitimate human (and civil) rights.

The Rev. King was one such Christian, and though he and other Christian leaders have, no doubt, welcomed aid and support from honorable and like-minded secularists over the centuries, it was and remains Christians – Bible-believing brothers and sisters like MLK, William Wilberforce, Harriet Tubman, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, et. al. – who have, indisputably, embodied the most effective and well-known of all humanitarian and civil rights activists.

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

Even so, in recent decades, sadly, and in what amounts to a sort of soft racism, a mostly white, hard-left movement of secular extremists has managed to hijack MLK’s Christian legacy and invoke his character-based “dream” to advance their own anti-Christian agenda and behavior-based nightmare. I am referring, of course, to homosexual activism (i.e., the push for so-called “gay marriage” and “gay rights”), which, by its very nature, and unlike MLK’s “dream,” is a wholly counter-biblical endeavor.

On all issues, particularly issues relating to morality and human rights, God’s word is the plumb line by which all truth is measured. “The moral law or the law of God,” as MLK called it, was, in fact, his exclusive guidepost and primary motivation. From a biblical standpoint, racism is objectively immoral, and Rev. King understood this – so he spent his entire life, gave his life in fact, working to secure civil and human rights for racial minorities.

Similarly, from a biblical standpoint, homosexual behavior, or “the sin of Sodom” as it’s oft referred, is likewise objectively immoral (along with its oxymoronic offshoot: counterfeit “same-sex marriage”). Jesus defined marriage for us. His definition is reflected in the spiritual, biological and in-every-other-way-self-evident order of His divinely defined design. “‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate’” (Matthew 19:4-6).

Moreover, the very thing that defines “gay marriage,” the biologically and spiritually disordered act of same-sex sodomy, is, likewise, a counterfeit. It mocks God’s design for natural sexual intercourse.

Indeed, the Bible, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, unambiguously condemns as “vile affections,” as sin rising to the level of “an abomination,” all same-sex sexual conduct, be it, “loving, monogamous and committed,” or otherwise.

Homosexuality is mock sexuality.

And “gay marriage” is mock marriage.

So-called “gay rights” represent nothing more than moral wrongs. Homosexual sin has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights and, based upon what we know of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., he would have wholeheartedly agreed. While he said little in public on the issue, what he did say made his viewpoint abundantly clear.

But don’t take my word for it. Unlike the “LGBT” lobby, I’ll let Dr. King speak for himself. In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Rev. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here’s the exchange in its entirety:

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

No amount of leftist spin can muddy Dr. King’s lucid position on the homosexual lifestyle. He recognized it as a “culturally acquired” “problem” in need of a “solution” – a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”

Although homosexual activists desperately cling to the fact that, after his death, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, did voice some level of support for the homosexualist political agenda, the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism.

Neither would he have supported same-sex “marriage.”

To be sure, in 2005 Rev. King’s daughter, Bernice King, led a march to her father’s graveside in support of a constitutional amendment to defend natural marriage. Sharing his position on the issue, she later said that her famous father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”

Indeed, it strains credulity to suggest that MLK, a man of the Bible, would have thrown his weight behind a political movement hell-bent on justifying unbiblical sexual appetites and behaviors that he properly identified as “a problem” demanding “a solution” – a “type of feeling” that requires “careful attention,” up to and including “see[ing] a good psychiatrist.”

No, MLK was a Christian minister who both embraced and articulated the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” model on homosexuality. Every Christian should follow his lead. After all, it is the lead set by Christ Himself.

And so, how would MLK have responded to the Supreme Court’s recent opinion presuming to invent a “constitutional right” to sodomy-based “marriage”?

It’s clear how he would have responded.

In his “letter from the Birmingham jail,” Rev. King famously declared, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” he explained. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

As it was with the national sin of systemic racism, there can be few things more “out of harmony with the moral law” than the inherently immoral notion of sodomy-based “marriage.”

And so the good reverend would have opposed it.

Quite likely, he would have led the charge against it.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).
J. Matt Barber
View all articles by J. Matt Barber
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • http://ayoungdemocrat.com JesseBec

    Yet you have living relatives and followers of MLK who say the opposite. So how narcissistic and conceited do you have to be, to claim you would know better than them?

    • WXRGina

      What? I know you don’t mean Alveda. No. Any “follower” of Dr. King who claims “the opposite” is a liar, and there is no truth in him. Move along. You will find no takers of your lies here.

      • http://ayoungdemocrat.com JesseBec

        A simple Google search will suffice. You can claim I lie all you want, but I’ll be content in knowing the truth - that your scared, reactionary response over something that has zero effect on your life is not my problem any longer, for the ultimate Constitutional authority has decided the issue for us. So enjoy your righteous indignation - it’s all you have left.

        • WXRGina

          No, sorry. This is not about a “Google search.” This is about truth and lies. And, the truth is that homosexual behavior is an abominable behavior, and it always will be. Further, there is no such thing, and never will be such a thing, as same-sex “marriage.” You can “be content” all you like, but you will always be wrong, and in the very end, you will understand how horribly wrong you are.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          The ultimate constitutional authority (the Constitution itself) has indeed decided the issue: there is no justification in it whatsoever for the federal government to attempt to change the definition of marriage as it has been understood by every civilization throughout history, nor is there any authority for the judiciary to create law rather than adjudicating on existing law (which says in over 40 states that marriage can only be between a man and a woman).

          http://www.americanclarion.com/firebombing-marriage-and-the-rule-of-law-38625

          It’s a pity that five rogue members of the U.S. Supreme court can’t abide by the constitution and felt compelled to usurp authority that did not belong to them to give evil people an excuse to perpetrate tyranny on the people of the United States.

      • franklinb23

        Bayard Rustin was one of MLK’s most trusted advisors who organized the 1963 March on Washington. Rustin was a gay man, and King knew about it. Does that mean King would have accepted gay marriage? Not necessarily. The fact that King didn’t believe Rustin to be a “liability” says something, though, doesn’t it?

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          His homosexual behavior wasn’t that widely known, and indications are that he tended to keep that activity on the down low to the public during the civil rights movement. He didn’t become an outspoken homosexual activist until after King was long gone.

          The quote in this article indicates MLK knew homosexual behavior was aberrant and a sign of a mental problem. However, given that MLK was fighting the Democrats’ institutional oppression, he probably saw Rustin as an ally against a more pressing an immiment evil.

          Would MLK have accepted counterfeit marriage? While the man wasn’t perfect, it defies credibility to assume he would, given that we know he understood homosexual behavior to be wrong and something to be avoided. When you further consider that only in the past 15-20 years has counterfeit marriage even been conceivable among the most extreme of Leftists (many practicing homosexuals still see it as a farce even today), it’s beyond ludicrous to claim King would have supported that abomination.

          Homosexual activists are so shamelessly desperate for legitimacy, there is nothing they won’t hijack, nothing they won’t distort, and nothing they won’t pervert in pursuit of it.

          • DCM7

            “many practicing homosexuals still see it as a farce even today”

            Even many within the “gay” community recognize exactly what many outside of it, who should know better, fail to see: that anything resembling marriage, with all the responsibility and restraint that naturally comes with it, is utterly and completely at odds with what homosexuality — and anything else endorsed by the Sexual Revolution — is ultimately all about.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Not half as narcissistic and conceited as someone who has the statements of the man right in front of them, proving MLK understood that homosexual inclinations were aberrant and unhealthy, yet still desperate enough to claim otherwise.

      It’s amazing the lies evil people will try to get away with, to themselves and to others.

  • Immortal Illumined

    a little turd attempting to speak for one of the greatest men ever, lol…….

    he doesn’t roll in your click clown…..he’s a reason gay rights are DOMINATING…

    get some scrub, MLK fought for LOVE

  • DCM7

    One of the most heavily overlooked aspects about the whole “gay rights” movement — especially with regards to “gay marriage” and invalid comparisons to the civil rights movement for blacks — has been this: The secular school of thought that furthered racism against blacks in the 20th century (regardless of its often being bought by “religious” people) is exactly the SAME as what has furthered the “gay rights” movement.

  • TheFireOfTheDRAGON

    Source: Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.
    “We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be,” she said, quoting her husband. “I’ve always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy,” King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement “thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion.” Her husband’s struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said.